Clarification: Port Orchard Council Sympathetic to Museum’s Angst

If you read the headline and subhead for
today’s story on the Sidney Museum and Art Gallery in the paper
version of the Kitsap Sun, you might get the impression that the
Port Orchard City Council is taking a rigid stance on its plans for
a parking garage/community center that shows encroachment on the
museum’s property. Both are literally true. The headline reads, “An
Uncertain Future For an Icon of the Past.” The subhead is “City
community center plans may hurt a bid to put Sidney Museum on the
national historic register.”

But if you read farther down in the story, you’ll hear
Councilman Rob Putaansuu say the plans, drafted by Art Anderson and
Associates, are far from set in stone and can be changed.
Councilwoman Carolyn Powers said it is unlikely the city would use
eminent domain to acquire the property, even as a last resort.

In fact, the council, through verbal consensus, responded to
museum spokesman Jud Turner’s plea for formal protection by asking
Development Director James Weaver to draft a resolution to be
posted on the Web site explaining that the council supports the
museum’s right to remain where it is. The resolution will come
before the council at its Feb. 9 meeting.

Turner was asking for written assurance from the council in part
because the museum board has applied to the National Register of
Historic Places. The city has tried to negotiate with the museum
board on options for saving the building, either temporarily or
permanently. While the talks were cordial, Turner said, neither of
those solutions is acceptable to the board. Moving the building
would definitely nix its chances for historic status. Making the
national register is not just a nicety, according to board member
Mary Peterson. It will put the museum in better position to receive
grants and corporate sponsorships.

Now, a caveat: even if the council does pass the resolution
protecting the status of the museum, a new council could, at some
future date, override that resolution if they determined that the
original plans better meet the city’s needs. Based on conversations
I’ve had with City Engineer Mark Dorsey and others, Art Anderson
included the museum property in its plans because that provided the
most favorable layout for the garage, giving the maximum number of
parking spaces, while protecting views from uphill homes.

Don’t look for any movement on the parking garage/community
center this year; there’s just no funding for it. We’ll hear
whether the museum made the national register in February. Stay
tuned.

One thought on “Clarification: Port Orchard Council Sympathetic to Museum’s Angst”

The museum has been envisioned from the beginning as being a part of the Towne Center Revitalization Project. It is the land underneath the building that was needed, not the building itself or the above-ground land it sits on.

Currently, we are parking on the City’s best and most desirable waterfront. Plans call for turning that into a park — not commercial development. The parking garage, which was originally proposed almost 10 years ago, will replace that parking, and add spaces, making other downtown revitalization possible.

Sitting atop the underground garage structure at the Prospect Street level will be a new building housing the Library, and a campus style community center. The Library brings over 22,000 people a month to downtown — people who also shop and eat in the restaurants there. Although the current Library building (which is owned by the City) is too small to accommodate future needs, the Library has made it clear that it wants to remain downtown, and the downtown merchants see it as a desirable neighbor.

The City has tried to work with the museum board, making numerous proposals to include it as part of the project. Those include leasing the land underneath the museum building, which would create an ongoing revenue stream for the museum, and be paid from parking revenues; moving the building during construction and then moving it back on to a new foundation (it currently sits on pier blocks — not a concrete foundation); moving it to an entirely new location altogether; and housing the museum in a new building as part of the new complex.

All of these proposals have been rejected by the museum board. The City has made it abundantly clear — numerous times — that since the museum desires to not be a part of the project, it has every intention of respecting its wishes. The City see this as a win-win, since it will save approximately $3.5 million in construction costs by doing so.